If you don't care about allocations why are you using Rust in the first place?
Also if you are super sloppy with allocations I would expect something like Java or Go would be faster since GC is more efficient.
Also if you are super sloppy with allocations I would expect something like Java or Go would be faster since GC is more efficient.
Because Rust excels on a lot of dimensions other than "systems programming"; Cargo is fantastic, the ecosystem of packages is great, it's one of the only languages that takes cross-platform support (including Windows) seriously, and it's got sum types.
Or, as withoutboats put it: https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1658536526043570179
Including some that run on the JVM and 30 years of Java, makes Maven Central certainly beat cargo.io in package count.
So there are options.
> Including some that run on the JVM
True. However, most that want to keep interoperability with Java, in order to get benefit of huge deposit of packages. That often means having to repeat Java's mistakes to maintain compatibility.
Likewise a language without flaws, is a language with no users.
No one over here was making the point Rust being a guest language, unless you want to now start discussing about GraalVM capability of executing LLVM bitcode.
"However, most that want to keep interoperability with Java, in order to get benefit of huge deposit of packages. That often means having to repeat Java's mistakes to maintain compatibility"
Or going back to the comment Ygg2 is replying to, regarding any ML derived language?
Where exactly do I assert anything regarding running on the JVM having any relation to Rust's position on the language market?
The mention was to make a point about one of those possible alternatives, available on the JVM.
Zero content on Rust's adoption.
No-shit. One is also old as Methuselah, so having a large repository of packages at that stage would mean it died already.
Plus it depends on granularity of packages. JS has
Perfection is a moot point anyway.